create_location

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'Returns the new location id' and describes the format of `parent` and constraints on `description` (≤1000 chars). However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., duplicate names, invalid parent) or any side effects, leaving some gaps for a create operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient and well-structured: three sentences front-load the purpose, then address parameters, return value, and an alternative tool. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description provides sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the return value, parameter formats, and an alternative for deep paths. Minor omissions like error handling or uniqueness constraints do not significantly hinder usability for a simple creation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds essential meaning. It explains `parent` as 'an existing location name or /-separated path (optional)' and `description` as 'optional free text, e.g. a contents summary (≤1000 chars).' The `name` parameter is not explicitly described beyond the entity context, but the description still covers most parameter semantics effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a LOCATION entity (e.g. a new tote/bin/shelf) to bootstrap a new storage spot.' This uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('LOCATION entity'), with concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_location and set_location by emphasizing creation of a new storage spot.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit use context: 'bootstrap a new storage spot.' It also gives a clear alternative: 'For deep paths, prefer import_csv's HB.location auto-create.' While it doesn't enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios, the conditional alternative provides strong guidance for choosing between tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.